Why do we always have to do something? How come no other countries see this as a problem? Let France go in there and surrender all over them or something. Sick of us sticking our nose where it does not belong.

amundb:Why do we always have to do something? How come no other countries see this as a problem? Let France go in there and surrender all over them or something. Sick of us sticking our nose where it does not belong.

TheGreatGazoo:Can we just bomb the government and the rebel camps? Then maybe the people will rise up and come up with a decent government.

Nope. Take out those two, then whichever third party that has the ambition and is also the most savage and ruthless will rise to power by cutting down anyone who opposes them, including those who could probably govern better. Tis the way it has always been.

It will be a symbolic move, cruise missiles vs a few warehouses. My gut says Obama just wants to delay the real fight until the next presidency, he's only got a couple years then it's not his problem. I think he's hoping a republican has to deal with it cause then he gets this nice legacy of peace sandwiched between two presidencies heavy with conflict. ( drones don't count because they don't make the news/history books like bombings and tanks do )

Outrageous Muff:mbillips: Ahem? Global Force for Good? C'mon, it's 100,000 tons, four acres of sovereign U.S. territory that doesn't require a permission slip to operate anywhere it dang well pleases. You know who did all the initial air strikes in Afghanistan in 2001? Wasn't the dang Air Force, that's for sure.

Yup, because the Army hasn't been training to secure chem sites in Jordan for four months and have set up a base for 20,000 soldiers.

Those are Patriot batteries, and an F-16 squadron, and a total of 900 troops (where do you get that ridiculous 20k number from? Pravda?) We're not sending any ground troops into Syria. We had a few thousand there in June for an annual multilateral exercise with Jordan and 18 other militaries, but they've all left except for the aforementioned defensive troops.

amundb:Why do we always have to do something? How come no other countries see this as a problem? Let France go in there and surrender all over them or something. Sick of us sticking our nose where it does not belong.

Pay attention, son, I say, pay attention. Britain and France led the way in Libya, with our quite considerable air support. You're going to be hearing a lot about Syria in the next month, and it's going to involve NATO and especially Turkey taking the lead, again with our quite considerable air support. And Russia is gonna FREAK (my personal experience talking to Russian soldiers is that they're OK with the US, but they freakin' HATE NATO (probably because Germany is in NATO).

I'm as pacifist as they come but at some particular point I think we need to just go all Iron Man on them. Destroy military infrastructure, chemical weapons and then just walk away and let them sort out their own problems.

He'll get a UN resolution right? Just like he did in Libya? Right?Its like if neo nazis and the kkk were going at it, who's side do you step in on or do you let them duke it out then take out the survivor?

It's lose-lose, and I'm extremely doubtful that Syria used chemical weapons. They're winning, support hasn't materialized for the rebels, and the UN was in the country when this happened. It makes no sense for Assad to have done it.

Joe Blowme:He'll get a UN resolution right? Just like he did in Libya? Right?Its like if neo nazis and the kkk were going at it, who's side do you step in on or do you let them duke it out then take out the survivor?

per NPR (not that i listen to NPR) there's not much of a chance with the UN since China and Russia would likely veto.

TheGreatGazoo:Then maybe the people will rise up and come up with a decent government.

If that's really what we want: enable the regular folks to get out of the way and live while the extreme sides insist on killing each other. Invest heavily in making the "refugee camps" livable and attractive, and teach the Syrians there to govern themselves from the bottom up - i.e. help them peacefully decide what a "decent government" looks like - rather than rely on exertion of power from the top down. Then whenever the war zone settles down, these people can move back in and take over.

mbillips:amundb: Why do we always have to do something? How come no other countries see this as a problem? Let France go in there and surrender all over them or something. Sick of us sticking our nose where it does not belong.

Pay attention, son, I say, pay attention. Britain and France led the way in Libya, with our quite considerable air support. You're going to be hearing a lot about Syria in the next month, and it's going to involve NATO and especially Turkey taking the lead, again with our quite considerable air support. And Russia is gonna FREAK (my personal experience talking to Russian soldiers is that they're OK with the US, but they freakin' HATE NATO (probably because Germany is in NATO).

Nadie_AZ:It seems likely that President Obama will bomb Syria sometime in the coming weeks.

I would love to go for a few years without this country exporting its top product overseas.

If Obama does use force in Syria, he will do so because of clear evidence that Assad's regime has killed lots of civilians with chemical weapons. Two considerations will likely drive his decision, if it comes to that. First, he has drawn a "red line" on this issue, publicly, at least five times in the last year, and failure to follow through-especially after the latest revelations-would send confusing signals, at best, about U.S. resolve and credibility. Second, failure to respond would erode, perhaps obliterate, the taboo that the international community has placed on chemical weapons (especially nerve gas) since the end of World War I. I suspect that this factor may be more pertinent to Obama, who takes the issue of international norms very seriously.

Why are we getting involved again? Because our President couldn't shut up and feels like he has to act? No, that's not reason enough. Nor is it reason enough that a country in the middle of a civil war is basically throwing the kitchen sink at each other for survival.

The problem I have is that anyone could smuggle in some chemicals and release it. Why should that trigger a retaliation>?

Some will just vanish for a while. A large number of the usual Total Farkers have been very silent about Obama lately.

I still support those (Bush) and these (Obama) actions no matter who the figure head. These things must be done, I don't expect most people to understand.

You don't see that all of these wars and skirmishes in the Middle East stem from us meddling in the 70s when we shouldn't have? Actually, you can argue that the Brits and French caused all of this with their meddling and artificial border drawing. The Middle Easterners, being the racist savages that they are, are simply unable to share borders with people of a slightly different ethnicity or take on the same religion.

Nutsac_Jim:I know.. lets send in planes to the third most heavily network air defense. You know.. the one with missles that can go 100k feet in the air.

And no Russians will be keen to test any stealth detection equipment.....

Meh. The previous third-best was in a little place called Iraq, in 1991. SAMs only work when they light off radar, and when they do that, they are big, immobile targets for HARM missiles. EA-18s take out the big SAMs with jamming and anti-radiation missiles, then B-2s and Tomahawks kill all the comm centers, and poof! No more networked air defense, just a bunch of locally directed SAM sites waiting to be killed. See the Bekaa Valley in 1982.

If Syria had a credible interceptor force, they could combine that with ground-based air defense to create a real problem, but they had only about 400 fighters and attack jets before the civil war, and half of those were Vietnam-era MiG 21s. Many of those are believed to be out of action by now.

If Turkey decided to take out Syria's air force, they wouldn't have much trouble doing it. They build their own F-16s and have modern AWACs. They're probably the fourth-most capable force in NATO, after the US, Britain and France.

Some will just vanish for a while. A large number of the usual Total Farkers have been very silent about Obama lately.

I still support those (Bush) and these (Obama) actions no matter who the figure head. These things must be done, I don't expect most people to understand.

You don't see that all of these wars and skirmishes in the Middle East stem from us meddling in the 70s when we shouldn't have? Actually, you can argue that the Brits and French caused all of this with their meddling and artificial border drawing. The Middle Easterners, being the racist savages that they are, are simply unable to share borders with people of a slightly different ethnicity or take on the same religion.

They did pretty well for centuries under the Ottoman Empire.

The French and English f*cked up the region and then the kick in the balls was a certain crazy guy in Saudi Arabia who was super devout got power right before this little thing called 'oil' was discovered. Crazy power plus wealth == recipe for batsh*t insanity.

He didn't export democracy. He exported fanaticism. And having Mecca in your nation is a pretty big deal.

The US came along a bit later and tried to play with the pieces already on the board.

Some will just vanish for a while. A large number of the usual Total Farkers have been very silent about Obama lately.

I still support those (Bush) and these (Obama) actions no matter who the figure head. These things must be done, I don't expect most people to understand.

What, pray tell, is the end game? How do we win here with intervention?

Chaos. Israel wants chaos in its neighbors, doesn't care how, just chaos. And what Israel wants, we do, that's what AIPAC pays all of our leaders for. Anyone wants to buck, and forget the money they picked up, well, they can deal with the media.

AIPAC are the bagmen, media are the legbreakers. Stranglehold. More war for Israel.

Nutsac_Jim:The problem I have is that anyone could smuggle in some chemicals and release it. Why should that trigger a retaliation>?

I doubt anyone puts the opposition forces above a false flag operation, or believes them unable to aquire the weapons. Also a good reason for the US maintain an arms length from actual intervention. If European governments want to punish the regime, have at them. We have new and slightly used drones, tanks, aircraft, and all manner of lethal weaponry to sell at prices that won't bust the Pocketbook of Austerity.

Some will just vanish for a while. A large number of the usual Total Farkers have been very silent about Obama lately.

I still support those (Bush) and these (Obama) actions no matter who the figure head. These things must be done, I don't expect most people to understand.

You don't see that all of these wars and skirmishes in the Middle East stem from us meddling in the 70s when we shouldn't have? Actually, you can argue that the Brits and French caused all of this with their meddling and artificial border drawing. The Middle Easterners, being the racist savages that they are, are simply unable to share borders with people of a slightly different ethnicity or take on the same religion.

If the US feels compelled to do something, may I suggest sending in half a dozen of those stealth choppers, take out (or capture) the key figures in the Syrian govt. and then get out? That's how he got OBL.

I don't usually approve of that sort of thing, but gassing your own populace kinda changes the rules, IMO.